36 retirement apartments at Land South Of Sole Bay Health Centre, Teal Close, Reydon

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by East Suffolk Planning Committee North on 8 Sept 2026.

DC/25/2677/FULRefusedAgainst officer advice

What was proposed

The application sought 36 one- and two-bedroom retirement apartments with communal facilities, access, parking, landscaping and support services.

“The building would include a communal residents lounge, managers office, a secure entrance lobby, guest suite, internal refuse storage, internal cycle storage, mobility scooter storeroom, a communal garden along with a terrace, and a 24-hour emergency help line available within each apartment and in the communal areas. 30”

“The application proposes 20no. 1-bed apartments and 16no. 2-bed apartments. A number of these will have private balconies or terraces.”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The 0.38-hectare site lies inside Reydon’s settlement boundary beside the health centre, bowls club and residential development.

“The site was previously granted approval in 2010 for the construction of a care home (application ref. DC/09/0611/FUL); this was part of a wider development scheme which include the development of the health centre and 38 no. dwellings. The dwellings and the health centre have been built out, although the health centre was constructed under a later permission (DC/12/0781/FUL).”

“The site is largely surrounded by residential development, along with the Health Centre to the north and the Bowls Club to the west. Residential dwellings in the area are a mix of two-storey and single-storey scales, along with the three-storey apartment block on the east side of Teal Close.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A care home was approved but not built, while later applications for 17 and eight dwellings were withdrawn.

“DC/09/0611/FUL: Construction of healthy living centre, residential care home, retail/commercial units, 38no. dwellings and creation of new village green (Amended Scheme) – Permitted. • DC/11/0661/DRC: Discharge of Conditions 3 (in part), 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14 (in part) and 15 of DC/09/0611/FUL - Construction of Healthy Living Centre, residential care home, retail/commercial units, 38 no. dwellings and creation of new village green (Amended Scheme).”

Officer report

What people objected to

Objections focused on the lack of affordable housing, insufficient parking, overdevelopment, design, overlooking, infrastructure pressure and possible impacts on the health centre.

“Inadequate parking and highway safety The revisions to the site plan, which include the addition of ‘2 no. Motorcycle Bays’, are negligible and do not address the significant shortfall in vehicle parking. Conflict with RPC Action 9 (Adequate Parking Provision): The Neighbourhood Plan requires adequate parking provision to be included in all new developments to avoid unsightly and unsafe parking, ‘such as parking on roadside verges’.”

“Overdevelopment and infrastructure pressure • Cumulative impact: The addition of 36 units contributes to a cumulative effect of overdevelopment along Halesworth Road, following approvals at St Felix and the Adnams bio-digester. • Infrastructure: RNP Key Issue 5 (Infrastructure Needs (Sewerage, Drainage, Roads and Parking)) highlights existing strain on sewerage and drainage systems.”

Officer report

Members’ debate

Members questioned the alternative use value, viability assumptions, affordable housing contribution, density and whether an overage clause should be required.

“Councillor Beavan said that the predication for viability assessment was whether their planning officers accepted the plan as an alternative use assessment. He questioned whether the alternative use was really an appropriate alternative use as it decided land value and because the land value was so high, about £1million/acre that meant they could not afford the affordable housing.”

“Density of development concern – L3 of 2026 NPPF. • WLP 8.32 Local plan that may refer to density of local plan. • WLP 8.2 Affordable housing. • Lack of affordable housing – 9 dwelling doesn’t require affordable homes. Then represents a conflict with policy as affordable housing isn’t being delivered when it could be. • WLP 8.1 – housing mix policy – supported by Reydon Neighbourhood plan.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because the alternative use value was considered inefficient and flawed, the affordable housing outcome conflicted with policy, and no overage clause was agreed.

“The application be REFUSED for the following reasons:”

“The AUV does not comprise efficient use of land, the role in benchmark land value is flawed. It is a low density form of development in an urban location which is a conflict with NPPF L3 and WLP 8.32 density and design development, and the resulting lack of affordable housing is contrary to WLP 8.2. The lack of agreed late-stage overage clause conflicts with WLP 8.2 and the associated appendix of Waveney local plan.”

Minutes

The members' reasons

“Councillor Hammond said that refusing the application would send a clear public message that the Committee did not accept the Alternative Use Value (AUV) that had been relied upon.”

Minutes

Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.

Councillors at the meeting

Apologies Geoffrey Ian David Wakeling Green, Graham Reginald Parker Labour

Source: Plota analysis of the council's minutes; parties from Democracy Club.

Sources

  • East Suffolk Planning Committee North minutes, 8 September 2026
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of East Suffolk's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Date
Tuesday 8 September 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Refused, against officer advice
Councillors
8Conservative 2Green 2Labour 2Lib Dem 2Show councillors
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)

This committee's year

61 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 5 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →